[Research] Collection

[ABH2]

Not to be a pessimist on the map tools, but I fear it will be a while before we get them. If CA is going to do 2 full expansions as I think they will (based on the current thread especially), I don't expect the tools until after the second.

Ok, quick other subject, I have calculated how much factions we can add:

Right now, we shouldn't have an issue with factions. There aren't too many that start with more than one region that would need to be cut down.

There are a few in the DB that would be usable before even having to use the ones mentioned. There are four 'test' factions, and those from the prologue. And while I haven't attempted to do it at this point, I'm really confused as to why it's thought to be impossible to add new factions. It should be a fairly easy task, to be honest. But maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew with that statement. But that may not even be necessary.

Oh, there is also one unused Gallic faction from CiG that can be used. Combined with those that will be removed from the GC and we are going to have faction slots to spare one way or the other at the moment without having to use any from the other campaigns.

[ABH2]

Hm. One issue I still have is that we are sort of skipping over Caesar's references. Livy used the term in different contexts, and I think that's a big part of this. The word seems to have evolved, certainly, but didn't lose its original meaning. Under Caesar, I don't think it was a distinct troop type (which I think was your original point), but it did seem to be a particular designation among the Romans.

Your description of your troop type is close to what I think a representation would look like still, though I'm not sure how armored they would be. To be honest. Have you seen the antesignani in DeI?

[Hetairos]

ABH2 how much effort would it take to test adding 1x new faction? I don't believe we will run short on factions, but if you be the first one to be able to add a completely new faction from scratch you must get a title of modding god because nobody else was able to so far.

[Doge Almighty]

With the latest rumors of fully-fledged expansion coming, my hopes for this mod are high once again.

[Hetairos]

Thanks mate, but consider the upcoming Augustan DLC more like the release of Rome II and the end of Rome II - Beta.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Hm. One issue I still have is that we are sort of skipping over Caesar's references. ............... To be honest. Have you seen the antesignani in DeI?

On the first - I don't think we are. Most, I believe, of Caesar's references are compatible (the term doesn't appear in the Gallic Wars at all and in fact only seems to appear (quick check) in the Civil Wars). All, apart from the one not translated, appear as 'advance guard' or 'advance light troops'. Thus I do see them as completely supportive of what I am suggesting.

I haven't seen the interpretation in DeI - but even if you went the RSII route, then they are certainly not bad and are highly useful troops.

Overall, however, given that the Late Auxilia seem to have been initially equipped with the hamata/chainmail just like the legions - I would probably believe the antesignanii had the same. 'Lighter arms' could then be interpreted as only applying to the spear and light javelin/lancea. Josephus, it seems, suggests the shield was different too. Perhaps they even had the spatha instead of the gladius - but now I'm guessing.

If this interpretation is valid - it may be possible that some monumental evidence of such antesignanii have been mis-identified as auxilia!

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Ok no problem, I'll get started on fixing the whole thing then,.

[ABH2]

Well, I could certainly try to create a new faction after I've finished the subcultures. With regards to a timeline, I couldn't say. A week or two to perhaps narrow it down and give a better answer as to whether it's possible.

[ABH2]

Just a small update - we are up to 17 new subcultures and another, Punic, which was changed to a new culture. I think we are pretty well set.

The Germans have been broken up into the Suebi tribes and those more settled. The Aquitinians have been added to the Gallic area (I've included the Volcae and the Liguarians in this group for gameplay reasons more than historical, though the Volcae could certainly fit there realistically). The Turdetani and Lusitanians have also been broken up to reflect their distinct language groups. Iberians and Celtiberians round out the Iberian peninsula.

So, there are four divisions of the Celts, two of the Germans at this point in time, and four in Iberia on top of the Carthaginian/Punic presence.

[Doge Almighty]

The more the merrier.... i guess ;3

[Hetairos]

From Hunin

P.S. concerning your post about cultures/sub-cultures
The Belgians would be a sub-culture of the Celts.
If you want to do German sub-cultures, you have three consistent factions: Cherusci (Saxons), Suebi and Chatti (Hessians).
There is a theoretically fourth faction - in your time scale of 200BC - these are the left-Rhine Eburoni+two more.
They will be extinct by Caesar in 50 BC and on their empty land, the Franks will rise from the moment the other three faction will be out of power and take on the Saxons and the Allemanns (aka Suebi).
The Franks are all the small tribes that were pro Roman and moved because of confrontations with the bigger alliances into western Europe. That is why it is called the Rhine-Weser Franks.
This is the Roman/German blend zone. But 200 BC this would be home of Eburoni etc. - we do not know how they called their federation or themselves.
By findings they are today referred to Celts, but for the Romans they have been Germans and later Germans moved into their territory.
It depends now which thesis you would like to apply by what is a Celt and what is a German.
They took one legion from the Romans, that's why they got extinct. So that has been some bigger player, that stood there and was able to hold their ground against other tribes.

[Hetairos]

Personally I like that we have split the Iberian Peninsula into 4 sub-cultures. I am not sure however if we should split the Germanic, Britannic and Gallic Sub-Cultures into multiple ones as well. I kind of like the idea Gallic and Germanic to be represented in Game as one sub-culture and confederation instead of them forming multiple confederations and fight each other. Gauls and Germanic were expanding well, while the Iberians did not. I am fine with Iberia being a more political, but less expanding place, while in the campaign it is totally possible that Gauls and Germans form a large confederation and steamroll. Britannic, well. Of course there are always wars, but I dont take the Britannic situation to justify multiple sub-cultures really fighting each other as big confederations.

Send your feedback, I take it into consideration, but I heavily tend to one Britannic, one Gallic and one Germanic sub-culture. If anyone has a good Gallic, Germanic or Britannic split up, you could win me for that, but only if its reasonable, clear and very good.

Cheers

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Here's something I found:

[Hetairos]

What we need so far:

Baltic - Baltic Horde
Alpine-Gallic (no confederations between those: Helvetic, Venetic, Ligurian etc. too different)
Maritime-Gallic (covering Narbonensis, a seperate confederation is possible)

What about:

Aremoric (prohibiting one huge gallic confederation, but one for the northern maritime regions and one for the mainland?

Still wondering about adding 3+ each for Britannia (Caledonian or Pictian?, Hibernian, Britannic) and Germania (Chattian, Cheruscian, Suebian)?

Personally I like that we have split the Iberian Peninsula into 4 sub-cultures. I am not sure however if we should split the Germanic, Britannic and Gallic Sub-Cultures into multiple ones as well. I kind of like the idea Gallic and Germanic to be represented in Game as one sub-culture and confederation instead of them forming multiple confederations and fight each other. Gauls and Germanic were expanding well, while the Iberians did not. I am fine with Iberia being a more political, but less expanding place, while in the campaign it is totally possible that Gauls and Germans form a large confederation and steamroll. Britannic, well. Of course there are always wars, but I dont take the Britannic situation to justify multiple sub-cultures really fighting each other as big confederations.

Send your feedback, I take it into consideration, but I heavily tend to one Britannic, one Gallic and one Germanic sub-culture. If anyone has a good Gallic, Germanic or Britannic split up, you could win me for that, but only if its reasonable, clear and very good.

Cheers

[ABH2]

To put this succinctly, I'd say there are two paths we can go on this. One, keep what we have now (which is pretty thorough), or follow your guiding line of modding with a future map in mind. I hope this breakdown will clarify the distinctions I'm hoping for with a simple map.

German Subcultures:
1. Irminones/Hermiones - Would include the Suebi/Chatii, Cherusci, Marcomanni
2. Istvaeones - Ubii (New faction), and Frisii
3. Ingvaeones - Rugii, Gutones, Cimbri
3a. Lugii (can't confederate with the other three)

This is based on the breakdown done by Tacitus and other authors. We could break up the Lugii into more distinct tribes and create a 4th Germanic culture that would include Eastern Germanic dialects.

Iberian Subcultures:
1. Celtiberian
2. Iberian
3. Turdetani
4. Lusitani

I think we are pretty much set here, but I would also argue that the distinctions being made were no more realistic than those that existed with the Germans. The German tribes may have been more distinct in terms of their social structure.

Gallic Subcultures (if we are going to go in-depth):
1. Aquitani (can confederate, but would only be applicable to CiG factions)
1a. Ligurian (can't confederate)
1b. Volcae (can't confederate)
2. Belgic
3. Cisalpine Gauls (We should ideally represent them in the future as distinct)
4. Celtic (Nori, Boi, Eravisci)
4a. Alpine (Raeti - can't confederate)
4b. Anartes (can't confederate)
5. Eastern Celts/Barbarians (Galatians/Tylis/Scordisci) - the remnants of the Celtic invasion of the Balkans
6. Gallic (Averni, Aedui, Carnutes, Pictones)
6a. Aulerci - Your coastal Gauls, term used by Caesar to describe the maritime Celts (Namnetes).

On the Aulerci - we could add factions later, or make this a subgroup of the Gauls themselves the way I've branched off some other factions. In CiG, we have a few more of the Aulerci represented, the Pictones and Carnutes really didn't fall into this category.

Britannic Subcultures:
1. Britannic (Iceni, Dumonii, Demetae, Brigantes)
1a. Ebdani (can't confederate)
1b. Caledones (can't confederate)

Then we would have the Illyrians, Thracians, Sarmatians, Dacians, and Scythians rounding out the barbarian culture group. We have relatively equal groups of conferate eligible factions with realistic subculture groupings based on distinctions made among observers of the ancient world.

[Hetairos]

At least with the Gallic we are on the right track:

- Aquitanian
- Belgic
- Gallic

All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgæ inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani

Same with the Iberians:

- Celtiberian
- Iberian
- Lusitanian
- Turdetanian

Now the Britannic:

- Britonnic
- Gaelic
- Pictish

Than the Celts / Mixtures / Alpine:

- Celtic
- Cisalpine
- Transalpine

The Illyrians:

- Illyrian
- Pannonian

The Balkans:

- Dacian
- Thracian

The Easterners

- Eastern Barbarian (Galatian)

The Nomads

- Baltic (Balto-Slavic)
- Cimmerian????? (Agricultural Non-Nomadic Scythians)
- Sakan (Eastern Aryan Scythians)
- Sarmatian
- Scythian (Western European Scythians)

Finally the Germanic (debatable, because of crazy names nobody will understand):

- Illevaeonic / Vandalic (Eastern Germans)
- Ingvaeonic (North Sea Germans)
- Irminonic / Suebian (Western "Elbe" Germans)
- Istvaeonic (Western "Rhein-Weser" Germans)
- Nordic / Scandinavian (Northern Germans)

If we want to make it newbiefriendly without those ingvaeonic etc. we could make it like that:

- Vandalic (Eastern)
- Suebian (Southern)
- Nordic (Northern)
- Chattian? Chatto-Cheruscan? Francian?... (Western)

Eastern Cultures

Since in our timeframe we do not have any african, arabian or persian confederations, leagues, empires etc. forming they will be very simple and not so distinguished like we did the roman, greek and barbarian cultures. Our eastern cultures are remaining as simple as possible, if everyone is ok with that?

Important: Again are we sure that the religion is the one factor that deals with culture conversion and conquest and definitely not the sub cultures?

[ABH2]

Ok, so I'm going to try this again after a chat with Hetairos.

Key:
Blue Text - This is simply for clarity in this post to help discuss the different groups. Does not appear in the DB in anyway.
Black Bolded - These are the actual DB subcultures

• This represents further breakdowns at the factional level. Basically, they may have some unique tweaks to differentiate them, and they typically can't confederate.

Barbarian Culture Groups
Illyrians/Balkans
1. Illyrians

• 1a. Delmatae (can't confederate)

2. Pannonians (Just the Breuci for now, own subculture)

Thracians
1. Thracians

Dacians
1. Dacians

Celts
1. Cisalpine Gauls

• 1a. Veneti (can't confederate)
• 1b. Insubres (can't confederate)
• 1c. Ligurians (can't confederate for now)

2. Transalpine Gauls

• 2a. Aquitani (CiG confederation only)
• 2b. Volcae (can't confederate)

3. Gallic

• 3a. Aulerci (Namnetes and CiG factions, can't confederate)

4. Belgic
5. Celtic (Boi, Nori, Eravisci)

• 4a. Raeti (can't confederate)

6. Eastern Celts (Galatians, Tylis, and Scordisci)

Germans
1. Irminones/Hermiones/Elbe Germanic - Would include the Suebi/Chatii, Cherusci, Marcomanni
2. Istvaeones/Western Germanic - Ubii (New faction), and Frisii
3. Ingvaeones/North Germanic - Rugii, Gutones, Cimbri

• 3a./Eastern Germanic Lugii (can't confederate with the other three)

Britons
1. Britonnic (Iceni, Dumonii, Demetae, Brigantes)
2. Pictish (Caledones)
3. Gaelic (Ebdani)

Nomads
1. Scythian (Royal Scythia, Catiaroi, Thyssagetae)
2. Saka (Sarmatian, Aorsoi, Bastarnae, Roxolani)
3. Sarmatian (Dahae, Khorasmii, Massagetae)
4. Balto-Slavic (Aesti, Anartes, Budini)

[ABH2]

Ok, we are good on everything besides the nomads, I believe. I don't understand the Balkan distinction. It's ahistorical. Could you explain your sources/background thinking on that again? I'm confused.

I can go with the Saka designation as the Persians did use it to refer to distinct groups closer to them. I could even get behind a more settled Scythian group for the future near the Crimea. I just don't see the need for this Baltic split. Especially with a more cut-up map. I think those 3 listed above cover the major splits, with the possible exception of some of the more settled tribes (which could really fall under Caucasian, anyway).

[Hloeric]

This is looking good. Wish i understood all the DB editing :-P awesome job guys. Im back of holiday now i will crawl back into my corner and continue roman retexturing :-P

[ABH2]

To simplify the Germanic nomenclature for the subcultures, I'd suggest breaking them down into simple territorial distinctions (added to the list). For those who are sticklers about historical terminology (which I am), I can do a submod in the future.

So, I suggest we have North/West/Elbe Germanic with Eastern Germanic groups being a sub of Elbe at this point (the Lugii being the only impacted faction, which can't confederate).